Saturday, October 24, 2009

Comment rescue: Your children really belong to the government

I do believe that the government should regulate what parents can allow their children to do and not do, like children should not drive cars or fly airplanes. If you take your child rock climbing and she is injured because she was too young, than there should be a penalty for that. Parents shouldn't risk their kid's life for cheap thrills when the kid may not have the maturity or judgement to know better.

The inherent premise here is that, due to the fact that a small percentage of parents across the nation will be stupid or even criminally negligent in raising their children, it is the legitimate role of government to protect all children not from abuse but from what some bureaucrat considers a sub-optimal parenting decision.

Ironically, these are pretty much the same bureaucrats who fail so miserably at actually preventing child neglect, sexual abuse, or physical abuse.

But I have to praise Anonone for the intellectual honesty necessary to say out loud what lots of people secretly believe: there is no aspect of your life that government should not regulate.

The runner-up award goes to those of you who believe (and you know who you are) that the government should mandate that you can only be naked in your own home if the shades are down and the curtains are closed.

24 comments:

"The runner-up award goes to those of you who believe (and you know who you are) that the government should mandate that you can only be naked in your own home if the shades are down and the curtains are closed."

"I do believe that the government should regulate what parents can allow their children to do and not do"

But then this qualifying statement doesn't get bold:

"like children should not drive cars or fly airplanes."

Clearly, anonone is NOT saying the govt. should have carte blanche in what it regulates in terms of child safety. But it should regulate where there is a clear and serious danger.

I also noticed, Mr. Counterexample, that you didn't answer anonone's counterexamples. Do you believe the omniscient and inerrant parents of America (I couldn't resist the hyperbole) should be allowed to determine if their children should fly planes and drive automobiles? Well, do you?

1) Ignoring the criticisms about the utter innumeracy and indefeasibility of his initial post on this topic, and

2) Trying to distract folks from considering the barbaric and murderous circumstances that children would face under a Libertarian form of government.

Common sense laws such as requiring children to be in child seats in automobiles up to a certain age and even having government standards for such seats would be considered intrusions by the "statists" and part of the so-called "Nanney state." And, of course, that list is endless.

Children would be subjected not only to the consequences of abuse and reckless endangerment by ignorant, reckless, or apathetic parents, but also the stupidity, recklessness, and greed of other adults and businesses unencumbered by even the most basic consumer protections laws, safety laws, or other so-called "statist" regulations.

Steve, I never wrote that "Your children really belong to the government," but I do believe that the government has a role in protecting children, including protecting children from their parents when necessary.

I first drove a vehicle at 12 years old on private property in a controlled setting. Should that illegal? Is that a clear and serious danger? I also had a dirt bike. Is that a clear and serious danger?

Other dangerous things I did:

Rock climbingSkateboardingSkiing (and then snowboarding)Playing outside after darkWalking on train tracksGoing to public school

"Jessica Whitney Dubroff was a 7-year-old pilot trainee who was attempting to become the youngest person to fly an airplane across the United States when, 24 hours into her attempt, her general aviation aircraft crashed after takeoff from Cheyenne Regional Airport in Cheyenne, Wyoming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Dubroff

I guess that was a "a sub-optimal parenting decision" that only a Libertarian could love.

"Children would be subjected not only to the consequences of abuse and reckless endangerment by ignorant, reckless, or apathetic parents, but also the stupidity, recklessness, and greed of other adults and businesses unencumbered by even the most basic consumer protections laws, safety laws, or other so-called "statist" regulations."

You have no point, A1. At least no coherent one. And thanks for proving my point that you don't understand what an externality is, i.e. rock climbing is not flying an airplane.

A child died in a plane crash while the plane was being piloted by an adult...so we should keep children off of airplanes?

Children should not go rock climbing...so where do you stand on tree climbing?

If I somehow own Jessica Dubroff's death, then you own all the children here.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

And all the ones killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It doesn't matter if you happen to oppose the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the one on drugs. If you voted for the guy who's currently running those three wars, you are responsible--not to mention barbaric and murderous.

Why don't you read the whole Jessica_Dubroff story before you make ridiculous rhetorical statements like "so we should keep children off of airplanes?"

I think we should have laws that prevent 7 year olds from piloting airplanes, as anti-Libertarian as that idea is. There is a difference between adults and children in their abilities to make judgements, in case you hadn't noticed.

In regards to your almost-as-ridiculous statement "If you voted for the guy who's currently running those three wars, you are responsible--not to mention barbaric and murderous" I'll just say that if you pay any taxes, you are just as responsible as me.

A1 opines: I think we should have laws that prevent 7 year olds from piloting airplanes, as anti-Libertarian as that idea is.

Of oourse you do and I am sure there are lots of laws you "think" (very loose use of the term) should be arbitrarily used to enforce your personal whim as to what constitutes one-size-fits-all personal and social responsibility.

I think anonymous assholes should be paraded in clown outfits through the town square, but I am not one to "think" that "there should be a law".

You, typically, confuse libertarian thought and philosophy with libertine license to do anything anyone wants, no matter the consequences.

Liberarianism is as much about facing real consequences for your choices, as it is about the freedom to make them.

Incidentally, other than your handily shot-down attempt to mislead with the Dubroff diversion, do you have the slightest iota of fact or data to support your latest "there oughta be a law" proclamation concerning 7-year olds piloting planes?

Or is it just your typical smarter-than-the-rest, holier-than-thee, legislating-by-the-thrill-up-your-leg hubristic authoritarianism?

"....government should mandate that you can only be naked in your own home if the shades are down and the curtains are closed"

I am soo in trouble. we live on 3 1/3 acre surrounded by woods -- have a swimming pool - and everybody that comes to visit in the summer knows to holler if they don't want to see naked people of all shapes and sizes upon approaching the house LOL. Oh yeah, and if you want to jump into our pool and don't have your swim stuff with you - WHO CARES..jump in anyway (well, if we are home - don't go into the backyard when we aren't - the dogs don't like that).

What would one of your posts be like without a dose of your meaningless personal attacks? You might try it sometime.

In regards to the Jessica Dubroff incident, I cited it as an example of fatal parenting and reckless adults:

"The NTSB further determined that 'contributing to the pilot in command’s decision to take off was a desire to adhere to an overly ambitious itinerary, in part, because of media commitments.'"

In regards to your assertion that "Liberarianism is as much about facing real consequences for your choices, as it is about the freedom to make them":

The fact is that innocent people, particularly children, have to face the "real consequences" of stupid, reckless, and negligent choices freely made by other people.

While it is clear that Libertarians believe that the government has no role in protecting children from needlessly suffering the "real consequences" of stupid, reckless, and negligent actions by their parents and other adults, I don't. I believe that one role of government is to try to prevent and mitigate stupid, reckless, and negligent choices that hurt and kill innocent people. Hence, the FDA, EPA, Consumer Protection Agencies, HHS, etc.

You can incorrectly call that "typical smarter-than-the-rest, holier-than-thee, legislating-by-the-thrill-up-your-leg hubristic authoritarianism" if you wish, but most people in America seem to agree with this governing philosophy.

Fortunately, few think that the Libertarian approach is sensible, let alone humane or compassionate.

bicycle riding? - 60% of all bike related injuries are kids 15 and younger. fun, exercise and transportation or harbinger of doom?

grass cutting? - about 12% of all lawn mower accidents involve kids under 16. good summer job or contraption of death?

swimming? - 20% of drowning deaths in public pools involve kids with a certified life guard. full body exercise or deadly deception?

the point is that the government can't (and shouldnt) regulate all actions. The old saying that you have to have a license to drive but anyone can have a kid is true. i would prefer to see individuals licensed to have kids than regulating after the fact. after all that is where the term FUCK comes from - Fornication Under Consent of the King.

Get real. There is no consensus about government intrusion, just an apathetic lack of overt resistance, at best, that is endemic to the relative wealth and materialism of our society.

Start taking people's stuff away for real by banning this, that and the other as too dangerous (to someone else's children) or by taxing it into non-existence, do it to the extent you so blithely want your pseudo-'collective' tyranny to intrude and your claims would quickly evaporate in ever-expanding, civil resistance and calculated lawbreaking - eroding not just respect for all your busybody 'laws', but for all laws and those who enforce them.

"I first drove a vehicle at 12 years old on private property in a controlled setting. Should that illegal? Is that a clear and serious danger? I also had a dirt bike. Is that a clear and serious danger?"

As with all these things, I am reluctant to ban unless a clear and serious danger is evidenced. That requires studies...trying to establish statistical facts. For some people facts matter.

As for children and pools and rock climbing, it seems to me that the percentage of those harmed who participate in these activities is determining--a percentage that is not captured by you Libertarians incessantly quoting the sheer numbers of those harmed. Of course you must know, for example, that probably the number of kids who swim annually is staggering and, comparatively, the number of those harmed by the activity is infinitesimal in contrast. But that doesn't restrain you from making a bogus and laughable argument.

This is only true of anonymous bloggers, like steaksauce, for whom only their words define who they are.

I guess it matters where you place the "only".

I prefer my Infantry OSUT company's motto, applicable to life but apparently of little meaning to those who write their online blog opinions behind a veil of secrecy, anonymous license, and unverifiable personal claims (like Mr. Steaksauce).